US v. Miguel Rodriguez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cr-00401-TMC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999729791].. [15-4359]

Appeal: 15-4359

Doc: 19

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4359

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:14-cr-00401-TMC-1)

Submitted:

December 22, 2015

Decided:

January 5, 2016

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greenville,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4359

Doc: 19

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Miguel Rodriguez pleaded guilty to assault of a corrections
officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) (2012).

The district

court sentenced Rodriguez to 37 months’ imprisonment, and he now
appeals.

Appellate

counsel

has

filed

a

brief

pursuant

to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether
the

district

court

committed

procedural

adequately explain the sentence imposed.

error

by

failing

to

Rodriguez was informed

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not
done so.

Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews the reasonableness of a sentence “under
a

deferential

abuse-of-discretion

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
substantive

reasonableness

of

standard.”

Gall

v.

United

We review the procedural and
the

sentence.

Id.

at

51.

“Procedural errors include ‘failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory,

failing

to

consider

the

[18

U.S.C.]

§ 3553(a)

factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.’”

United

States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
Only if the sentence is free of “significant procedural
error” does the court review the substantive reasonableness of
the

sentence,

accounting

for
2

“the

totality

of

the

Appeal: 15-4359

Doc: 19

Filed: 01/05/2016

circumstances.”
properly

Pg: 3 of 4

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

calculated

Guidelines

Any sentence within a

range

is

presumptively

substantively reasonable; this presumption is rebutted only by
demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.

United States v. Dowell, 771

F.3d 162, 176 (4th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court

correctly

calculated

the

Guidelines

range,

treated

the

Guidelines as advisory only, and did not rely on erroneous facts
in

determining

the

sentence

imposed.

The

district

court

considered all of the § 3553(a) factors and thoroughly discussed
the factors that were relevant to Rodriguez’s case.

Because the

district court imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range
and addressed the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we conclude that
the

district

court

did

not

abuse

its

discretion

or

fail

to

adequately explain the reason for its sentence.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
sentence.
writing,

We

therefore

affirm

Rodriguez’s

conviction

and

This court requires that counsel inform Rodriguez, in
of

the

right

to

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Rodriguez requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
3

Appeal: 15-4359

Doc: 19

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on Rodriguez.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4